[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: Re: needing clarification about XSL transformation
Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Vitaly Ostanin wrote: > > >>With this style xslt-processor must not copy comments and PI. >>This style not overriding built-in templates, so saxon is >>incorrect. > > > ah, so as i read this, the conflict resolution is that, > even if i have a template that matches "node()", that will > be overridden by the more explicit built-in rule that matches > "comment()" explicitly, whose effect is to do nothing with > the comment. > > perhaps it's just kay's wording, but in his book at the > bottom of p. 315, he writes (after a list of how template > matching is done): > > "If there are *no* [my emphasis] templates that match > the selected node, the built-in template for the relevant > node type is used." > > the way i read this is that the "node()" test *would* > match a comment(), and thus my template would be used. > apparently, that's not what he meant, but you can see > how it could be interpreted that way, i hope. but that actually would imply that kay contrdicts himself. XPath rec says: A node test node() is true for any node of any type *whatsoever* anyway: if you are really interested in resolving this issue, i'd suggest you post it at the xsl mailing list, both kay and veillard (author of xsltproc, if i remember right) will probably be eager to proove their transformer is conformant. or you take a pragmatic approach and just include comment() and pi(), since the w3c recommendations are ambiguous sometimes. markus
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]